Harder – oversight on coal plants.
Better – Renewable Portfolio Standard and investments in international adaptation.
Faster – emissions reductions targets.
STRONGER – leadership in the Senate and a stronger bill!
Tuesday, July 7th: first EPW hearing on Climate Bill
The Strongmen stormed the capitol! 6 activists in muscle costumes greeted senators going into the hearing, proudly flexing their muscles and calling on them to be the bill they want to see. Despite getting there at 7am for a 10am hearing, too many paid line-sitters were saving seats for lobbyists, preventing the Strongmen from entering. Their presence in the hallway was still impressive because it afforded the opportunity to talk to the press and flex for all the staff. In addition to staffers and the media, The Strongmen greeted Senators Kerry and Lugar walking in and out of the Foreign Relations Committee meeting room across the hall. Quote from Senator Kerry: “Stronger Climate Bill? Lets make it happen!”
Tuesday Afternoon: EPW Follow up
The Action Factory Strongmen visited 19 of the 20 senators offices on the EPW committee that afternoon to do personal workout routines. (Senator Inhoffe was skipped as he is too woefully out of shape to participate.) Workout routines consisted of three easy steps: 4 reps reaching high into the air to hit 40% reductions by 2020, three reps of five for 5% of allocations for international adaptation, 5% for REDD and 5% for clean tech transfer. And finally, since congress needs someone to spot them on the big lifts, we asked the EPA to provide oversight. Strongmen left bar-bells as presents in the offices, as well as teaching the interns how to do the workout for their bosses.
Thursday, July 9th: Aerial photo and more office visits:
As part of the Campus Progress lobby day, the Action Factory stepped up to organize a mass-action involving over 60 people in a guerilla aerial photo. Co-organizing with Energy Action Coalition and Chesapeake Climate Action Network, a team of letter captains, 50 volunteers walked into the Senate Hart office building and formed a ‘flash-mob’ spelling out STRONG in front of the baffled police. (See above photo)
This rapid-response call for a STRONG bill was followed by a group of 30 in strongmen outfits, Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger shirts and Powershift09 shirts to visit the offices of primary targets in the fight for a strong climate bill: Senators Levin (D-MI), Snow (R-ME) and McCaskill (D-MO).
The visit to McCaskil’s office was particularly relevant because she has repeatedly expressed concern that the climate bill is ‘too strong’ (to paraphrase). With the Strongmen’s help, Claire can beef up her stance on climate, provide the green jobs Missourians want and the international leadership the world needs.
Avaaz Action Factories: www.actionfactories.org
Avaaz has formed action factories at two strategic locations in Europe and in Washington DC to gather and deploy youth climate activists. Each location houses 15+ ‘Youth Climate Fellows’ working as a team, and supported by Avaaz.org. These fellows are devoting their summer months to mobilizing stunts, lobbying campaigns, and other actions. The work of these activists will maximize the possibility of achieving a strong binding global climate treaty at Copenhagen, and will raise the expectations and demands of the global public that governments must achieve such a treaty.
Photos Here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dc_climate_action/
Media Coverage:
Roll Call – Covers news and gossip on Capitol Hill
http://www.rollcall.com/gallery/1_214/#
Slate.com – Online news magazine with broad national reach and diverse readership
http://www.slate.com/id/2222493/
Free Speech Radio News
http://www.fsrn.org/audio/us-senate-loggerheads-over-clean-energy-legislation/5012
Treehugger.com – national blog on green politics, lifestyle, products and issues
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/07/strongmen-capitol.php
Wonkroom – Center for American Progress blog
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/07/09/harder-better-faster-stronger/
CNN – Lou Dobbs – Brief appearance on environmental groups not having a fair fight against big-money lobbyists.
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2009/07/08/ldt.sylvester.homeless.line.holders.cnn
That’s a really amazing photo at the top of the page… who took it?
[Updated post with photo credit!]
Special thanks to Christine Irvine for an amazing photo, as part of this guerrilla photo shoot.
I’m highly disappointed that the Action Factory is promoting policy that undermines Indigenous Peoples and local communities’ rights to the usage and ownership of their forest lands and marginalize communal-use rights.
REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) is being pushed by the World Bank as a scheme to privatize forests as carbon sinks. The US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia have opposed any reference to Indigenous Peoples’ rights. The Bank has a track record of failed forest conservation projects that human rights and environmental activists have campaigned against since the 1980′s. They have left behind a trail of human rights abuses and ecological disaster.
The U.N. itself admits that REDD could violate human rights & indigenous rights, marginalize the landless, increase poverty, undermine democracy, promote monoculture tree plantations, criminalize indigenous livelihoods & blame indigenous people for climate change. All the while, it’ll be used as a cover to allow wealthy polluters in the global north to continue to pollute at an increasing rate.
At COP14 in Bali (December 2008), the International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on Climate Change (IIPFCC) called for an immediate suspension of all REDD projects.
If the AVAAZ Action Factory is serious about promoting climate justice, they need to immediately retract their support for REDD and take leadership from indigenous communities who have been continually been marginalized by mainstream environmental organizations.
Right on, I think this is pretty disappointing. With all its funding, attention, and influence I think AVAAZ could do a little better. REDD should be being condemned outright, and not looked to as some sort of bad-math quick fix carbon solution.
yeah i agree w/ pete and david. i think it’s really offensive that once again, the “environmental movement” is being “represented” by crazy things like this. did avaaz folks do any research about the negative impacts of this bill, or did you just not really care? and if you did know and care, why aren’t you confronting the politicians about that instead of putting on silly gimmicks to strengthen some insane climate bill that will promote further destruction?
and also, why did all the “strongmen” have to be men? oh wait, patriarchy. also one of the main sponsors of Climate Change.
you all have this opportunity to get up close and personal with the politicians making the decisions that are ruining the future, why don’t you do something a little more radical, in solidarity with people all around the world being totally screwed by the american government and the world bank. please stop promoting capitalism as a solution to climate change, it doesn’t represent the views of those most effected who don’t have the privilege and opportunity to make it to dc to confront senators and have their voices heard [ignored].
Thanks for the great points about REDD. Indigenous rights are also central to our concerns as we move forward. The reality of the situation is that indigenous forest rights are already being severely abused. We feel that a REDD mechanism, done right, can enhance indigenous rights while also reducing carbon emissions and enhance forest biodiversity and conservation. Below are some principles that guide our work:
-A REDD mechanism must make explicit provisions that acknowledge and safeguard the rights, interests and needs of indigenous peoples and local communities in which it operates, and reaffirm rights and benefits under international instruments and treaties, including, inter alia, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).
-A REDD mechanism must guarantee the security of land/property/customary use rights of local and indigenous communities as well as provide for and encourage their continued direct participation in the conservation of their forests.
-In many countries, participatory legal reviews to clarify tenure and access rights will be essential before funds from REDD can or should be distributed.
-If the rights, interests and needs of forest dependent peoples are not acknowledged and safeguarded in a REDD scheme, social and economic instability, lack of support, and active resistance to REDD will threaten its effectiveness and permanence and could ultimately cause its demise.
Overall, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation does not have to conflict with protecting indigenous peoples’ rights; indeed it can strengthen them. So the challenges are to a) make sure there is plenty of funding for REDD, and b) fight to make sure the funding mechanism and governance structures are just and effective in an international treaty. The latter fight will be done mostly through international negotiations before and at Copenhagen, but the funding battle is here, now, and critical.
Indigenous activists have issued clear rejections of these sort of market-based regimes backed by abusive institutions like the World Bank. As allies, it’s important that we let these groups take leadership, and when they say they do not want these projects, that we don’t continue to try to promote them. It’s especially important in this atmosphere, where groups are being pressured to not speak out against REDD, and face economic blackmail for doing so.
In a January 2009 interview, Tom Goldtooth (executive director of the Indigenous Environmental Network) said, “The positive side to REDD is, well, I guess, no, I don’t see a positive side to REDD. I’m just not sold on an idea that using forest as a carbon offset is a solution. It allows the northern industrialised countries to continue to pollute and even increase greenhouse gases. It creates toxic hotspots and energy sacrifice zones such as the tar sands in Canada or the proposed offshore drilling in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas of Alaska. It creates the expansion of coal mining and coal-fired power plants within our Indigenous territories in Southwest U.S. creating compounding changes of climate, toxic and health complications for our communities. REDD provides an “out” for industrialised countries like the U.S. from seriously cutting their carbon emissions. REDD in many ways rewards those wanting to develop industrial tree plantations, the loggers and the agrofuel industry.”
You can read the whole interview at http://www.ienearth.org/docs/InterviewTomGoldtoothREDDMonitor.html.
Here are some of the rave reviews that REDD has received:
“REDD will not benefit Indigenous Peoples, but in fact, it will result in
more violations of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights. It will increase the violation
of our Human Rights, our rights to our lands, territories and resources,
steal our land, cause forced evictions, prevent access and threaten
indigenous agriculture practices, destroy biodiversity and culture diversity and
cause social conflicts. Under REDD, States and Carbon Traders will
take more control over our forests . -Indigenous Peoples Statement on REDD to the UN
“REDD could unleash a devastating wave of further forest loss, land grabbing, corruption, cultural
destruction and conflict .” Indigenous Peoples “risk displacement, violence and lost of livelihoods.” -Friends of the Earth
“The vast majority of indigenous peoples feel that the REDD will not benefit Indigenous Peoples, but in fact will result in more violations of Indigenous Peoples’ rights. It will increase the violation of our rights to our lands, territories and resources; cause forced evictions; prevent access and threaten indigenous agriculture practices; destroy biodiversity, cultural diversity, traditional livelihoods and knowledge systems; and cause social conflicts. Under REDD, States and carbon traders will take more control over our forests.” -Indigenous Peoples Petition to the Members of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues
As the second largest cause of global warming, it is clear that we must address deforestation. But privatizing forests, which also happen to be the homes for millions of people, and selling the carbon rights so that rich nations and multinational corporations can continue to pollute is not the way to do it.
Rachel, the problem with your list of criteria for REDD, is that they are not included in REDD. In fact such language was actually rejected at recent UN meetings. So it is utterly irresponsible for groups such as Avaaz calling for funding for REDD knowing it does not respect indigenous rights.
Indigenous rights aside, it is neither effective nor desirable to allow companies to continue unrestricted burning of fossil fuels in exchange for offsetting their emissions via REDD.
For more critiques of REDD check out: http://www.redd-monitor.org
Thanks, Matt
Thanks for posting the Goldtooth interview – really important to frame this debate – encourage everyone to read it.
This issue is obviously really complicated, it’s crucial that there are international provisions in US legislation. The Unites States must invest in other countries – this included revitalizing forests. Currently the avenue in US legislation is through the REDD provisions. There are so many things wrong with REDD – we must support forests WHILE continuing to restructure these programs so that they support communities rather then destroying them. Equally important is making sure REDD is not an excuse to build more coal plants.